Showing 1 – 50 of 77 results.
Curated
Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units, 2007 (ICPSR 29503)
Released/updated on: 2011-03-22
Geographic coverage: United States
The 2007 Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units (CLEGU) collected data from all state and local law enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn officers and at least one officer dedicated solely to addressing gangs and gang activities. Law enforcement agencies are often the first line of response to the gang problems experienced across the country and are a critical component of most anti-gang initiatives. One way for law enforcement agencies to address gang-related problems is to form specialized gang units. The consolidation of an agency's gang enforcement activities and resources into a single unit can allow gang unit officers to develop specific expertise and technical skills related to local gang characteristics and behaviors and gang prevention and suppression. No prior studies have collected data regarding the organization and operations of law enforcement gang units nationwide, the types of gang prevention tactics employed, or the characteristics and training of gang unit officers. This CLEGU collected data on the operations, workload, policies, and procedures of gang units in large state and local law enforcement agencies in order to expand knowledge of gang prevention and enforcement tactics. The CLEGU also collected summary measures of gang activity in the agencies' jurisdictions to allow for comparison across jurisdictions with similar gang problems.
Curated
Census of Public Defender Offices: County-Based and Local Offices, 2007 (ICPSR 29502)
Released/updated on: 2011-05-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) collected data from public defender offices located across 49 states and the District of Columbia. Public defender offices are one of three methods through which states and localities ensure that indigent defendants are granted the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel. (In addition to defender offices, indigent defense services may also be provided by court-assigned private counsel or by a contract system in which private attorneys contractually agree to take on a specified number of indigent defendants or indigent defense cases.) Public defender offices have a salaried staff of full- or part-time attorneys who represent indigent defendants and are employed as direct government employees or through a public, nonprofit organization. Public defenders play an important role in the United States criminal justice system. Data from prior BJS surveys on indigent defense representation indicate that most criminal defendants rely on some form of publicly provided defense counsel, primarily public defenders. Although the United States Supreme Court has mandated that the states provide counsel for indigent persons accused of crime, documentation on the nature and provision of these services has not been readily available. States have devised various systems, rules of organization, and funding mechanisms for indigent defense programs. While the operation and funding of public defender offices varies across states, public defender offices can be generally classified as being part of either a state program or a county-based system. The 22 state public defender programs functioned entirely under the direction of a central administrative office that funded and administered all the public defender offices in the state. For the 28 states with county-based offices, indigent defense services were administered at the county or local jurisdictional level and funded principally by the county or through a combination of county and state funds. The CPDO collected data from both state- and county-based offices. All public defender offices that were principally funded by state or local governments and provided general criminal defense services, conflict services, or capital case representation were within the scope of the study. Federal public defender offices and offices that provided primarily contract or assigned counsel services with private attorneys were excluded from the data collection. In addition, public defender offices that were principally funded by a tribal government, or provided primarily appellate or juvenile services were outside the scope of the project and were also excluded. The CPDO gathered information on public defender office staffing, expenditures, attorney training, standards and guidelines, and caseloads, including the number and type of cases received by the offices. The data collected by the CPDO can be compared to and analyzed against many of the existing national standards for the provision of indigent defense services.
Curated
Census of Public Defender Offices: State Programs, 2007 (ICPSR 29501)
Released/updated on: 2011-05-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) collected data from public defender offices located across 49 states and the District of Columbia. Public defender offices are one of three methods through which states and localities ensure that indigent defendants are granted the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel. (In addition to defender offices, indigent defense services may also be provided by court-assigned private counsel or by a contract system in which private attorneys contractually agree to take on a specified number of indigent defendants or indigent defense cases.) Public defender offices have a salaried staff of full- or part-time attorneys who represent indigent defendants and are employed as direct government employees or through a public, nonprofit organization. Public defenders play an important role in the United States criminal justice system. Data from prior BJS surveys on indigent defense representation indicate that most criminal defendants rely on some form of publicly provided defense counsel, primarily public defenders. Although the United States Supreme Court has mandated that the states provide counsel for indigent persons accused of crime, documentation on the nature and provision of these services has not been readily available. States have devised various systems, rules of organization, and funding mechanisms for indigent defense programs. While the operation and funding of public defender offices varies across states, public defender offices can be generally classified as being part of either a state program or a county-based system. The 22 state public defender programs functioned entirely under the direction of a central administrative office that funded and administered all the public defender offices in the state. For the 28 states with county-based offices, indigent defense services were administered at the county or local jurisdictional level and funded principally by the county or through a combination of county and state funds. The CPDO collected data from both state- and county-based offices. All public defender offices that were principally funded by state or local governments and provided general criminal defense services, conflict services, or capital case representation were within the scope of the study. Federal public defender offices and offices that provided primarily contract or assigned counsel services with private attorneys were excluded from the data collection. In addition, public defender offices that were principally funded by a tribal government, or provided primarily appellate or juvenile services were outside the scope of the project and were also excluded. The CPDO gathered information on public defender office staffing, expenditures, attorney training, standards and guidelines, and caseloads, including the number and type of cases received by the offices. The data collected by the CPDO can be compared to and analyzed against many of the existing national standards for the provision of indigent defense services.
Curated
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002 (ICPSR 4287)
Released/updated on: 2005-09-02
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-01-01--2004-01-01
To obtain current baseline information about the workload and operations of the nation's forensic crime laboratories, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted its first census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories from 2003 to 2004. Data were collected on the organization, functions, budget, staffing, workload, and performance expectations of the nation's publicly funded federal, state, and local forensic crime laboratories currently operating.
Curated
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002 and 2005 (ICPSR 23120)
Released/updated on: 2008-10-24
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection contains data from censuses of publicly funded crime laboratories in 2002 and 2005. The data were collected to examine change and stability in the operations of crime laboratories serving federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) first surveyed forensic crime laboratories in 1998, focusing solely on agencies that performed DNA analysis. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the 1998 study as part of its DNA Laboratory Improvement Program. The BJS' National Study of DNA Laboratories was repeated in 2001. An expanded version of the data collection, called the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, was first conducted among all forensic crime laboratories in 2002. Data were collected from 2003 to 2004 on the organization, functions, budget, staffing, workload, and performance expectations of the nation's forensic crime laboratories operating in 2002. A total of 306 of the 351 crime laboratories operating in 2002 responded to the census. The latest census obtained data from 351 of the 389 laboratories operating in 2005, including at least 1 laboratory from every state. The nation's publicly funded forensic crime laboratories performed a variety of forensic services in 2005, including DNA testing and controlled substance identification for federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The 2005 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories obtained detailed information on the types of forensic requests received by these laboratories and the resources needed to complete them. The census also collected data on crime laboratory budgets, personnel, accreditations, and backlogged cases.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2009 (ICPSR 34340)
Released/updated on: 2018-01-26
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection contains data from censuses of publicly funded crime laboratories in 2009. The data were collected to examine change and stability in the operations of crime laboratories serving federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) first surveyed forensic crime laboratories in 1998, focusing solely on agencies that performed DNA analysis. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the 1998 study as part of its DNA Laboratory Improvement Program. The BJS' National Study of DNA Laboratories was repeated in 2001. An expanded version of the data collection, called the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, was first conducted among all forensic crime laboratories in 2002. For the 2009 study, data were collected from 2010 to 2011 on the organization, functions, budget, staffing, workload, and performance expectations of the nation's forensic crime laboratories operating in 2009. A total of 397 of the 411 eligible crime laboratories operating in 2009 responded to the census, including at least 1 laboratory from every state. The nation's publicly funded forensic crime laboratories performed a variety of forensic services in 2009, including DNA testing and controlled substance identification for federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The 2009 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories obtained detailed information on the types of forensic requests received by these laboratories and the resources needed to complete them. The census also collected data on crime laboratory budgets, personnel, accreditations, and backlogged cases.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2014 (ICPSR 36759)
Released/updated on: 2017-04-19
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection contains data from censuses of publicly funded crime laboratories in 2014. The data were collected to examine change and stability in the operations of crime laboratories serving federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) first surveyed forensic crime laboratories in 1998, focusing solely on agencies that performed DNA analysis. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the 1998 study as part of its DNA Laboratory Improvement Program. The BJS' National Study of DNA Laboratories was repeated in 2001. An expanded version of the data collection, called the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, was first conducted among all forensic crime laboratories in 2002. For the 2014 study, data were collected from April 2015 to September 2015 on the organization, functions, budget, staffing, workload, and performance expectations of the nation's forensic crime laboratories operating in 2014. A total of 360 of the 409 eligible crime laboratories operating in 2014 responded to the census. The nation's publicly funded forensic crime laboratories performed a variety of forensic services in 2014, including DNA testing and controlled substance identification for federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The 2014 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories obtained detailed information on the types of forensic requests received by these laboratories and the resources needed to complete them. The census also collected data on crime laboratory budgets, personnel, accreditations, and backlogged cases.
Curated
Community Policing and Police Agency Accreditation in the United States, 1992 and 1994 (ICPSR 2560)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
This study was undertaken to examine the compatibility of law enforcement agency accreditation and community policing. It sought to answer the following questions: (1) Are accreditation and community policing compatible? (2) Do accreditation and community policing conflict? (3) Does accreditation support community policing? (4) Did any of this change with the 1994 "top-down" revision of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) standards? To that end, the researchers conducted separate content analyses of the 897 accreditation standards of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) in effect at the end of 1992 and the revised set of 436 standards published in 1994. The standards were coded on 27 variables derived from the literature on community policing and police administration. Information was collected on the basics of each accreditation standard, its references to issues of community-oriented policing (COP) and problem-oriented policing (POP), and general information on its compatibility, or conflict with COP and POP. Basic variables cover standard, chapter, section, and applicability. Variables focusing on the compatibility of community-oriented policing and the accreditation standards include sources of legitimacy/authorization, community input, community reciprocity, geographic responsibility, and broadening of functions. Variables on problem-oriented policing include level of analysis, empirical analysis, collaboration with nonpolice agencies, evaluation/assessment, and nature of the problem. Variables on management and administration concern officer discretion, specialization by unit, specialization by task, formalization, centralization, levels/hierarchy, employee notification, employee involvement, employee rights, specific accountability, and customer orientation. General information on the compatibility or conflict between a standard and community-oriented policing/problem-oriented policing includes overall restrictiveness of the standard, primary strategic affiliation, focus on process, and focus on administration.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs
Developing a Common Metric for Evaluating Police Performance in Deadly Force Situations in the United States, 2009-2011 (ICPSR 33141)
Released/updated on: 2014-06-18
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2009-07-01--2011-09-01
This study developed interval-level measurement scales for evaluating police officer performance during real or simulated deadly force situations. Through a two-day concept mapping focus group, statements were identified to describe two sets of dynamics: the difficulty (D) of a deadly force situation and the performance (P) of a police officer in that situation. These statements were then operationalized into measurable Likert-scale items that were scored by 291 use of force instructors from more than 100 agencies across the United States using an online survey instrument. The dataset resulting from this process contains a total of 685 variables, comprised of 312 difficulty statement items, 278 performance statement items, and 94 variables that measure the demographic characteristics of the scorers.
Curated
Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies, 1986: [United States] (ICPSR 8696)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
This dataset lists law enforcement agencies and contains variables regarding employment categories such as total full-time, part-time, sworn-in, and other employees. It also contains FIPS codes and populations.
Curated
Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies, 1992: [United States] (ICPSR 2266)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
To ensure an accurate sampling frame for its Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey, the Bureau of Justice Statistics periodically sponsors a census of the nation's state and local law enforcement agencies. This census, known as the Directory Survey, gathers data on all police and sheriffs' departments that are publicly funded and employ at least one full-time or part-time sworn officer with general arrest powers. This data collection, compiled in July 1992, represents the second such census, with the first occurring in 1986 (DIRECTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, 1986: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 8696]). Variables include personnel totals, type of agency, geographic location of agency, and whether the agency had the legal authority to hold a person beyond arraignment for 48 or more hours.
Curated
Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies, 1996: [United States] (ICPSR 2260)
Released/updated on: 1998-09-11
Geographic coverage: United States
To ensure an accurate sampling frame for its Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey, the Bureau of Justice Statistics periodically sponsors a census of the nation's state and local law enforcement agencies. This census, known as the Directory Survey, gathers data on 49 primary state law enforcement agencies and all sheriffs' departments, local police departments, and special police agencies (state or local) that are publicly funded and employ at least one sworn officer with general arrest powers. The 1996 Directory Survey collected data on the number of sworn and nonsworn personnel employed by each agency, including both full-time and part-time employees. Within the full-time sworn category, data were collected from all agencies on the number who were uniformed officers with regularly assigned duties that included responding to calls for service. For agencies with at least 10 full-time sworn officers, the number whose primary duties were related to investigations, court operations, or jail operations was also obtained. This data collection, compiled in June 1996, represents the third such census, with the first occurring in 1986 (DIRECTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, 1986: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 8696]) and the second in 1992 (DIRECTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, 1992: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 2266]). Variables include personnel totals, type of government, type of agency, and whether the agency had the legal authority to hold a person beyond arraignment for 48 or more hours.
Curated
Divorce Mediation and Domestic Violence in the United States, 1993 (ICPSR 2561)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This study gathered data on policies and procedures for identifying domestic violence issues among divorcing couples and examined divorce mediation practices and policies in cases with allegations of spousal violence. Mediators and court administrators provided information on: (1) whether and how they attempted to gauge the level of domestic abuse and the capacity of divorcing parties to mediate, and (2) common adjustments to the mediation process made to enhance safety in divorce cases where domestic abuse is present. Data collection involved a collaboration with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) in the administration and analysis of this survey. Court programs providing divorce mediation and/or custody evaluations in 1993 were targeted. The questionnaire was mailed in late 1993 to 200 institutional members of the AFCC and active providers of family and divorce services in the National Center for State Courts database. A total of 149 public-sector divorce mediation and custody/visitation counseling providers responded. Variables include information on the rules, statutes, or guidelines under which the program operates, case handling procedures prior to mediation or custody/visitation evaluations, and procedures used when clients come to mediation. Information is also provided on the number of paid professional staff, number of custody/visitation mediations and evaluations completed, population of the jurisdiction, the program's relationship to the court, types of orientation programs for parents provided by the court, if the community had any supervised visitation services, and the city and state in which the program is located.
Curated
Evaluation of a Centralized Response to Domestic Violence by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department Domestic Violence Unit, 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3488)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California
Time period: 1998-01-01--1999-01-01
This study examined the implementation of a specialized domestic violence unit within the San Diego County Sheriff's Department to determine whether the creation of the new unit would lead to increased and improved reporting, and more filings for prosecution. In order to evaluate the implementation of the specialized domestic violence unit, the researchers conducted the following tasks: (1) They surveyed field deputies to assess their level of knowledge about domestic violence laws and adherence to the countywide domestic violence protocol. (2) They studied a sample from the case tracking system that reported cases of domestic violence handled by the domestic violence unit to determine changes in procedures compared to an earlier case tracking study with no specialized unit. (3) They interviewed victims of domestic violence by phone to explore the responsiveness of the field deputies and the unit detectives to the needs of the victims. Part 1 (Deputy Survey Data) contains data on unit detectives' knowledge about the laws concerning domestic violence. Information includes whether or not the person considered the primary aggressor was the person who committed the first act of aggression, if a law enforcement officer could decide whether or not to complete a domestic violence supplemental report, whether an arrest should be made if there was reasonable cause to believe that a misdemeanor offense had been committed, and whether the decision to prosecute a suspect lay within the discretion of the district or city attorney. Demographic variables include deputy's years of education and law enforcement experience. Part 2 (Case Tracking Data) includes demographic variables such as race and sex of the victim and the suspect, and the relationship between the victim and the suspect. Other information was collected on whether the victim and the suspect used alcohol and drugs prior to or during the incident, if the victim was pregnant, if children were present during the incident, highest charge on the incident report, if the reporting call was made at the same place the incident occurred, suspect actions described on the report, if a gun, knife, physical force, or verbal abuse was used in the incident, if the victim or the suspect was injured, and if medical treatment was provided to the victim. Data were also gathered on whether the suspect was arrested or booked, how the investigating officer decided whether to request that the prosecutor file charges, type of evidence collected, if a victim or witness statement was collected, if the victim had a restraining order, prior history of domestic violence, if the victim was provided with information on domestic violence law, hotline, shelter, transportation, and medical treatment, highest arrest charge, number of arrests for any drug charges, weapon charges, domestic violence charges, or other charges, case disposition, number of convictions for the charges, and number of prior arrests and convictions. Part 3 (Victim Survey Data) includes demographic variables such as victim's gender and race. Other variables include how much time the deputy spent at the scene when s/he responded to the call, number of deputies the victim interacted with at the scene, number of deputies at the scene that were male or female, if the victim used any of the information the deputy provided, if the victim used referral information for counseling, legal, shelter, and other services, how helpful the victim found the information, and the victim's rating of the performance of the deputy.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in the State College, Pennsylvania, Police Department, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3166)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
This project was an 18-month long research-practitioner partnership to conduct a process evaluation of the State College Police Department's implementation of a grant to encourage arrest policies for domestic violence. The general goals of the process evaluation were to assess how and to what extent the State College Police Department's proposed activities were implemented as planned, based on the rationale that such activities would enhance the potential for increasing victim safety and perpetrator accountability systemically. As part of the grant, the police department sought to improve case tracking and services to victims by developing new specialized positions for domestic violence, including: (1) a domestic violence arrest coordinator from within the State College Police Department who was responsible for monitoring case outcomes through the courts and updating domestic violence policies and training (Part 1, Victim Tracking Data from Domestic Violence Coordinator), (2) a victims service attorney from Legal Services who was responsible for handling civil law issues for domestic violence victims, including support, child custody, employment, financial, consumer, public benefits, and housing issues (Part 2, Victim Tracking Data From Victim Services Attorney), and (3) an intensive domestic violence probation officer from the Centre County Probation and Parole Department who was responsible for providing close supervision and follow-up of batterers (Part 3, Offender Tracking Data). Researchers worked with practitioners to develop databases suitable for monitoring service provision by the three newly-created positions for domestic violence cases. Major categories of data collected on the victim tracking form (Parts 1 and 2) included location of initial contact, type of initial contact, referral source, reason for initial contact, service/consultation provided at initial contact, meetings, and referrals out. Types of services provided include reporting abuse, filing a Protection from Abuse order, legal representation, and assistance with court procedures. Major categories of data collected on the offender tracking form (Part 3) included location of initial contact, type of initial contact, referral source, reason for initial contact, service/consultation provided, charges, sentence received, relationship between the victim and perpetrator, marital status, children in the home, referrals out, presentencing investigation completed, prior criminal history, and reason for termination. Types of services provided include pre-sentence investigation, placement on supervision, and assessment and evaluation. In addition to developing these new positions, the police department also sought to improve how officers handled domestic violence cases through a two-day training program. The evaluation conducted pre- and post-training assessments of all personnel training in 1999 and conducted follow-up surveys to assess the long-term impact of training. For Part 4, Police Training Survey Data, surveys were administered to law enforcement personnel participating in a two-day domestic violence training program. Surveys were administered both before and after the training program and focused on knowledge about domestic violence policies and protocols, attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence, and the background and experience of the officers. Within six months after the training, the same participants were contacted to complete a follow-up survey. Variables in Part 4 measure how well officers knew domestic violence arrest policies, their attitudes toward abused women and how to handle domestic violence cases, and their opinions about training. Demographic variables in Part 4 include age, sex, race, education, and years in law enforcement.
Curated
Evaluation of Law Enforcement Training for Domestic Violence Cases in a Southwestern City in Texas, 1997-1999 (ICPSR 3400)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1997-01-01--1999-01-01
This study was an outcome evaluation of the effects of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project Training Model for Law Enforcement Response on police officer attitudes toward domestic violence. Data on the effectiveness of the training were collected by means of an attitude survey of law enforcement officers (Part 1). Additionally, two experimental designs (Part 2) were implemented to test the effects of the Duluth model training on (1) time spent by police officers at the scene of a domestic violence incident, and (2) the number of convictions. Variables for Part 1 include the assigned research group and respondents' level of agreement with various statements, such as: alcohol is the primary cause of family violence, men are more likely than women to be aggressive, only mentally ill people batter their families, mandatory arrest of offenders is the best way to reduce repeat episodes of violence, family violence is a private matter, law enforcement policies are ineffective for preventing family violence, children of single-parent, female-headed families are abused more than children of dual-parent households, and prosecution of an offender is unlikely regardless of how well a victim cooperates. Index scores calculated from groupings of various variables are included as well as whether the respondent found training interesting, relevant, well-organized, and useful. Demographic variables for each respondent include race, gender, age, and assignment and position in the police department. Variables for Part 2 include whether the domestic violence case occurred before or after training, to which test group the case belongs, the amount of time in minutes spent on the domestic violence scene, and whether the case resulted in a conviction.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs
Evaluation of Less-Lethal Technologies on Police Use-of-Force Outcomes in 13 Sites in the United States, 1992-2007 (ICPSR 27561)
Released/updated on: 2013-10-29
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1992-01-01--2007-01-01
The study examined how law enforcement agencies (LEAs) manage the use of force by officers. It was conducted to produce practical information that can help LEAs establish guidelines that assist in the effective design of Conducted Energy Device (CED) deployment programs that support increased safety for officers and citizens. The study used a quasi-experimental design to compare seven LEAs with CED deployment to a set of six matched LEAs that did not deploy CEDs on a variety of safety outcomes. From 2006-2008, data were collected on the details of every use of force incident during a specified time period (1992-2007), as well as demographic and crime statistics for each site. For the agencies that deployed CEDs, at least two years of data on use of force incidents were collected for the period before CED deployment and at least two years of data for the period after CED deployment. For the agencies that did not deploy CEDs, at least four years of data were collected over a similar period.
Curated
Evaluation of North Carolina's 1994 Structured Sentencing Law, 1992-1998 (ICPSR 2891)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States
Time period: 1992-01-01--1998-01-01
Effective October 1, 1994, the state of North Carolina implemented a new structured sentencing law that applied to all felony and misdemeanor crimes (except for driving while impaired) committed on or after October 1, 1994. Under the new structured sentencing law parole was eliminated, and a sentencing commission developed recommended ranges of punishment for offense and offender categories, set priorities for the use of correctional resources, and developed a model to estimate correctional populations. This study sought to investigate sentencing reforms by looking at the effects of structured sentencing on multiple aspects of the adjudication process in North Carolina. A further objective was to determine whether there were differences in the commission of institutional infractions between inmates sentenced to North Carolina prisons under the pre-structured versus structured sentencing laws. Researchers hoped that the results of this study may help North Carolina and jurisdictions around the country (1) anticipate the likely effects of structured sentencing laws, (2) design new laws that might better achieve the jurisdictions' goals, and (3) improve the potential of sentencing legislation in order to enhance public safety in an effective and equitable way. Administrative records data were collected from two sources. First, in order to examine the effects of structured sentencing on the adjudication process in North Carolina, criminal case data were obtained from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (Parts 1 and 2). The pre-structured sentencing and structured sentencing samples were selected at the case level, and each record in Parts 1 and 2 represents a charged offense processed in either the North Carolina Superior or District Court. Second, inmate records data were collected from administrative records provided by the North Carolina Department of Correction (Part 3). These data were used to compare the involvement in infractions of inmates sentenced under both pre-structured and structured sentencing. The data for Part 3 focused on inmates entering the prison system between June 1, 1995, and January 31, 1998. Variables for Parts 1 and 2 include type of charge, charged offense date, method of disposition (e.g., dismissal, withdrawal, jury trial), defendant's plea, verdict for the offense, and whether the offense was processed through the North Carolina Superior or District Court. Structured sentencing offense class and modified Uniform Crime Reporting code for both charged and convicted offenses are presented for Parts 1 and 2. There are also county, prosecutorial district, and defendant episode identifiers in both parts. Variables related to defendant episodes include types of offenses within episode, total number of charges and convictions, whether all charges were dismissed, whether any felony charge resulted in a jury trial, and the adjudication time for all charges. Demographic variables for Parts 1 and 2 include the defendant's age, race, and gender. Part 3 variables include the date of prison admission, sentence type, number of prior incarcerations, number of years served during prior incarcerations, maximum sentence length for current incarceration, jail credit in years, count of all infractions during current and prior incarcerations, reason for incarceration, infraction rate, the risk for alcohol and drug dependency based on alcohol and chemical dependency screening scores, and the number of assault, drug/alcohol, profanity/disobedience, work absence, and money/property infractions during an inmate's current incarceration. Demographic variables for Part 3 include race, gender, and age at the time of each inmate's prison admission.
Curated
Factors Influencing the Quality and Utility of Government-Sponsored Criminal Justice Research in the United States, 1975-1986 (ICPSR 9089)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1975-01-01--1986-01-01
This data collection examines the effects of organizational environment and funding level on the utility of criminal justice research projects sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). The data represent a unique source of information on factors that influence the quality and utility of criminal justice research. Variables describing the research grants include NIJ office responsible for monitoring the grant (e.g., courts, police, corrections, etc.), organization type receiving the grant (academic or nonacademic), type of data (collected originally, existing, merged), and priority area (crime, victims, parole, police). The studies are also classified by: (1) sampling method employed, (2) presentation style, (3) statistical analysis employed, (4) type of research design, (5) number of observation points, and (6) unit of analysis. Additional variables provided include whether there was a copy of the study report in the National Criminal Justice Archive, whether the study contained recommendations for policy or practice, and whether the project was completed on time. The data file provides two indices--one that represents quality and one that represents utility. Each measure is generated from a combination of variables in the dataset.
Curated
Incapacitation Effects of Incarcerating Drug Offenders: Longitudinal Arrest Histories of Adults Arrested in Washington, DC, 1985-1986 (ICPSR 2741)
Released/updated on: 2000-07-27
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 1985-07-01--1986-06-01
This study examined differences in criminal career parameters that determine the potential incapacitative effects of alternative sentencing policies directed at drug-involved offenders. In particular, the researchers explored three key aspects of offenders' criminal careers: participation, frequency of offending, and termination rates from active offending. The study focused on differences in levels of serious offending by drug-using and nonusing drug offenders compared to drug-using and nonusing predatory offenders. Longitudinal arrest data for a sample of arrestees were collected to characterize the offending patterns of drug-using and nonusing drug offenders and predatory offenders. The sample was drawn from adults arrested in Washington, DC, on any charge from July 1, 1985, to June 30, 1986. Data were collected from case files maintained by the Washington, DC, Pretrial Services Agency for 883 arrestees and 5,387 arrests. Previous and subsequent arrests of the same individual were linked to form an arrest history. Within the sample of arrestees, three main types of offenders were distinguished based on offense charge at target arrest: (1) drug offenders, (2) predatory offenders (persons charged with robbery or burglary), and (3) all others. This study focused on the first two groups and distinguished drug users from non-users based on the results of a urine drug screen administered following the target arrest. Variables regarding arrests include date of arrest, drug test result, charges filed, disposition date, disposition type, and sentence length imposed. Demographic variables include race, sex, and place of birth.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Body-Worn Camera Supplement (LEMAS-BWCS), 2016 (ICPSR 37302)
Released/updated on: 2019-06-20
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2015-01-01--2016-01-01
Beginning in 2016, the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey adopted a core and supplement structure. The LEMAS core has been conducted every 3 to 4 years since 1987 with approximately 3,200 local, county and state law enforcement agencies across the United States. Due to the breadth of the survey, detailed analysis of any specific law enforcement topic cannot be done with the LEMAS core. The LEMAS supplements are designed to fill this void by allowing for a more comprehensive examination on a key topic in law enforcement and are administered in between core years. The 2016 LEMAS Body-Worn Camera Supplement (LEMAS-BWCS) is the first supplement administered under the new structure.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 2013 (ICPSR 36164)
Released/updated on: 2015-09-22
Geographic coverage: United States
The Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey collects data from a nationally representative sample of state and local law enforcement agencies in the United States. Although the data collection instrument (see page 150 of the codebook) uses the year 2012 for the title, most questions have a reference date of January 1, 2013. For this reason, the study title uses the year 2013. The 2013 LEMAS sample design called for the survey questionnaire to be sent to 3,336 general purpose state and local law enforcement agencies including 2,353 local police departments, 933 sheriffs' offices, and the 50 primary state law enforcement agencies. The design called for all agencies employing 100 or sworn personnel to be included with certainty (self-representing) and for smaller agencies to be sampled from strata base on number of officers employed. A total of 26 local police departments were determined to be out-of-scope for the survey because they were closed, outsourced, or operating on a part-time basis. A total of 38 sheriffs' offices were excluded from the survey because they had no primary law enforcement jurisdiction. The final mailout total of 3,272 agencies included 2,327 local police departments, 895 sheriffs' offices, and the 50 state agencies.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 2016 (ICPSR 37323)
Released/updated on: 2020-08-20
Geographic coverage: United States
The Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey collects data from a nationally representative sample of general-purpose agencies (i.e., local and county police departments, sheriffs' offices, and primary state police agencies). The 2016 LEMAS sample design called for the survey questionnaire to be sent to 3,499 general purpose law enforcement agencies, including 2,640 local and county police departments, 810 sheriffs' offices, and the 49 primary state police departments (Hawaii does not have a primary state police agency). The design called for all agencies employing 100 or more full-time equivalent sworn personnel to be included with certainty (self-representing), and for smaller agencies to be sampled from strata based on number of full-time equivalent sworn officers and type of agency. A total of 28 local police departments were determined to be out-of-scope for the survey because they had closed, had less than one full-time equivalent sworn officer, had contracted out their services with another law enforcement agency, or only had special enforcement responsibilities. The final mail out total of 3,471 agencies included 2,612 local police departments, 810 sheriffs' offices, and the 49 state agencies.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 2020 (ICPSR 38651)
Released/updated on: 2023-03-07
Geographic coverage: United States
The Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey collects data from a nationally representative sample of general-purpose agencies (i.e., local and county police departments, sheriffs' offices, and primary state police agencies). The 2020 LEMAS sample design called for the survey questionnaire to be sent to 3,499 general purpose law enforcement agencies, including 2,631 local and county police departments, 819 sheriffs' offices, and the 49 primary state police departments (Hawaii does not have a primary state police agency). The design called for all agencies employing 100 or more full-time equivalent sworn personnel to be included with certainty (self-representing), and for smaller agencies to be sampled from strata based on number of full-time equivalent sworn officers and type of agency. A total of 37 local police departments were determined to be out-of-scope for the survey because they had closed, had less than one full-time equivalent sworn officer, had contracted out their services with another law enforcement agency, or only had special enforcement responsibilities. The final mail out total of 3,462 agencies included 2,611 local police departments, 802 sheriffs' offices, and the 49 state agencies.
Curated
Line Police Officer Knowledge of Search and Seizure Law: An Exploratory Multi-city Test in the United States, 1986-1987 (ICPSR 9981)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1986-01-01--1987-01-01
This data collection was undertaken to gather information on the extent of police officers' knowledge of search and seizure law, an issue with important consequences for law enforcement. A specially-produced videotape depicting line duty situations that uniformed police officers frequently encounter was viewed by 478 line uniformed police officers from 52 randomly-selected cities in which search and seizure laws were determined to be no more restrictive than applicable United States Supreme Court decisions. Testing of the police officers occurred in all regions as established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, except for the Pacific region (California, Oregon, and Washington), since search and seizure laws in these states are, in some instances, more restrictive than United States Supreme Court decisions. No testing occurred in cities with populations under 10,000 because of budget limitations. Fourteen questions to which the officers responded were presented in the videotape. Each police officer also completed a questionnaire that included questions on demographics, training, and work experience, covering their age, sex, race, shift worked, years of police experience, education, training on search and seizure law, effectiveness of various types of training instructors and methods, how easily they could obtain advice about search and seizure questions they encountered, and court outcomes of search and seizure cases in which they were involved. Police department representatives completed a separate questionnaire providing department characteristics and information on search and seizure training and procedures, such as the number of sworn officers, existence of general training and the number of hours required, existence of in-service search and seizure training and the number of hours and testing required, existence of policies and procedures on search and seizure, and means of advice available to officers about search and seizure questions. These data comprise Part 1. For purposes of comparison and interpretation of the police officer test scores, question responses were also obtained from other sources. Part 2 contains responses from 36 judges from states with search and seizure laws no more restrictive than the United States Supreme Court decisions, as well as responses from a demographic and work-experience questionnaire inquiring about their age, law school attendance, general judicial experience, and judicial experience and education specific to search and seizure laws. All geographic regions except New England and the Pacific were represented by the judges. Part 3, Comparison Data, contains answers to the 14 test questions only, from 15 elected district attorneys, 6 assistant district attorneys, the district attorney in another city and 11 of his assistant district attorneys, a police attorney with expertise in search and seizure law, 24 police academy trainees with no previous police work experience who were tested before search and seizure law training, a second group of 17 police academy trainees -- some with police work experience but no search and seizure law training, 55 law enforcement officer trainees from a third academy tested immediately after search and seizure training, 7 technical college students with no previous education or training on search and seizure law, and 27 university criminal justice course students, also with no search and seizure law education or training.
Curated
Management of Death Row Inmates, 1986-1987: [United States] (ICPSR 9917)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1986-01-01--1987-01-01
These data offer objective and subjective information about current death row inmates and the management policies and procedures related to their incarceration. The major objectives of the study were to gather data about the inmate population and current management policies and procedures, to identify issues facing correctional administrators in supervising the growing number of condemned inmates, and to offer options for improved management. Four survey instruments were developed: (1) a form for the Department of Corrections in each of the 37 states that had a capital punishment statute as of March 1986, (2) a form for each warden of an institution that housed death-sentenced inmates, (3) a form for staff members who worked with such inmates, and (4) a form for a sample of the inmates. The surveys included questions about inmate demographics (e.g., date of birth, sex, race, Hispanic origin, level of education, marital status, and number of children), the institutional facilities available to death row inmates, state laws pertaining to them, training for staff who deal with them, the usefulness of various counseling, medical, and recreational programs, whether the inmates expected to be executed, and the challenges in managing the death row population. The surveys did not probe legal, moral, or political arguments about the death penalty itself.
Curated
Management of Sex Offenders by Probation and Parole Agencies in the United States, 1994 (ICPSR 6627)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This study examined various ways states approach and sanction sex crimes (i.e., child sexual abuse, incest, and sexual assault) and sex offenders. The aim of the study was to obtain basic information about policies and procedures of probation and parole agencies with respect to adult sex offender case management. State corrections administrators in 49 states and the District of Columbia were contacted to supply information on their states' probation and parole offices and the corresponding jurisdictions. From these offices, probation and parole supervisors at the office-management level were selected as survey respondents because of their familiarity with the day-to-day office operations. Respondents were asked about the usage of various supervision methods, such as electronic monitoring, requiring offenders on probation or parole to register with law enforcement agencies, and polygraph testing. Sanctions such as requiring the offenders to seek treatment and forbidding contact with the victim were discussed, as were various queries about the handling of the victim in the case (whether a written statement by the victim was routinely included in the offender's file, whether officers usually had contact with the victim, and whether there was a system for advising victims of status changes for the offender). Other questions focused on whether the office used specialized assessments, caseloads, programs, and policies for sex offenders that differed from those used for other offenders. Various issues regarding treatment for offenders were also examined: who chooses and pays the treatment provider, whether the agency or the court approves treatment providers, what criteria are involved in approval, and whether the office had an in-house sex offender treatment program.
Curated
National Assessment of Criminal Justice Needs, 1983: [United States] (ICPSR 8362)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
In 1983, the National Institute of Justice sponsored a program evaluation survey by Abt Associates that was designed to identify the highest priority needs for management and operational improvements in the criminal justice system. Six groups were surveyed: judges and trial court administrators, corrections officials, public defenders, police, prosecutors, and probation/parole officials. Variables in this study include background information on the respondents' agencies, such as operating budget and number of employees, financial resources available to the agency, and technical assistance, research, and initiative programs used by the agency. The codebook includes the mailed questionnaire sent to each of the six groups in the study as well as a copy of the telephone interview guide.
Curated
National Assessment of Gangs in Correctional Facilities, 1992 (ICPSR 6147)
Released/updated on: 1997-04-14
Geographic coverage: United States
This study sought to identify and examine current policies and strategies for controlling prison gangs and to determine the ways in which correctional facilities were dealing with gangs in their institutions. Respondents to the mail survey included 55 local jail systems and 52 state prison systems (the 50 state Departments of Corrections, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons). The survey question text used the term "security threat group" (STG), which was defined as "two or more inmates, acting together, who pose a threat to the security or safety of staff/inmates and/or are disruptive to programs and/or to the orderly management of the facility/system," rather than the generic term "gang." Data contain information on total inmate population, number of STGs, number of inmates identified as confirmed, suspected, associate, and drop-out members of STGs, total incidents of violence, number of violent incidents by STG members, management strategies to deal with gangs, and names of STGs known to be present within the system.
Curated
National Assessment Program Survey of Criminal Justice Agencies in the United States, 1992-1994 (ICPSR 6481)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1992-01-01--1994-01-01
The National Assessment Program (NAP) Survey was conducted to determine the needs and problems of state and local criminal justice agencies. At the local level in each sampled county, survey questionnaires were distributed to police chiefs of the largest city, sheriffs, jail administrators, prosecutors, public defenders, chief trial court judges, trial court administrators (where applicable), and probation and parole agency heads. Data were collected at the state level through surveys sent to attorneys general, commissioners of corrections, prison wardens, state court administrators, and directors of probation and parole. For the 1992-1994 survey, 13 separate questionnaires were used. Police chiefs and sheriffs received the same survey instruments, with a screening procedure employed to identify sheriffs who handled law enforcement responsibilities. Of the 411 counties selected, 264 counties also employed trial court administrators. Judges and trial court administrators received identical survey instruments. A total of 546 surveys were mailed to probation and parole agencies, with the same questions asked of state and local officers. Counties that had separate agencies for probation and parole were sent two surveys. All survey instruments were divided into sections on workload (except that the wardens, jail administrators, and corrections commissioners were sent a section on jail use and crowding instead), staffing, operations and procedures, and background. The staffing section of each survey queried respondents on recruitment, retention, training, and number of staff. The other sections varied from instrument to instrument, with questions tailored to the responsibilities of the particular agency. Most of the questionnaires asked about use of automated information systems, programs, policies, or aspects of the facility or security needing improvement, agency responsibilities and jurisdictions, factors contributing to workload increases, budget, number of fulltime employees and other staff, and contracted services. Questions specific to police chiefs and sheriffs included activities aimed at drug problems and whether they anticipated increases in authorized strength in officers. Jail administrators, corrections commissioners, and wardens were asked about factors contributing to jail crowding, alternatives to jail, medical services offered, drug testing and drug-related admissions, and inmate classification. Topics covered by the surveys for prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and state and trial court administrators included types of cases handled, case timeliness, diversion and sentencing alternatives, and court and jury management. State and local probation and parole agency directors were asked about diagnostic tools, contracted services, and drug testing. Attorneys general were queried about operational issues, statutory authority, and legal services and support provided to state and local criminal justice agencies.
Curated
National Evaluation of Title I of the 1994 Crime Act: Survey Sampling Frame of Law Enforcement Agencies, 1993-1997 (ICPSR 3080)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1993-06-01--1997-06-01
The data in this collection represent the sampling frame used to draw a national sample of law enforcement agencies. The sampling frame was a composite of law enforcement agencies in existence between June 1993 and June 1997 and was used in a subsequent study, a national evaluation of Title I of the 1994 Crime Act. The evaluation was undertaken to (1) measure differences between Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grantees and nongrantees at the time of application, (2) measure changes over time in grantee agencies, and (3) compare changes over time between grantees and nongrantees. The sampling frame was comprised of two components: (a) a grantee component consisting of agencies that had received funding during 1995, and (b) a nongrantee component consisting of agencies that appeared potentially eligible but remained unfunded through 1995.
Curated
National Manpower Survey, 1973-1976 (ICPSR 7675)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1973-01-01--1976-01-01
This data collection contains information from a series of national surveys, conducted simultaneously across the criminal justice system, to ascertain national manpower strengths and goals, agency information and characteristics, and attitudes of the agency heads during the period 1973-1976. The National Manpower Survey was undertaken to assess the adequacy of existing federal, state, and local training and education programs meeting current personnel needs in various law enforcement and criminal justice functions and operations. The study intended to project future personnel and training needs, by occupation, in relation to anticipated availability of qualified personnel in order to assess the future adequacy of training and educational resources. It also sought to establish "needs priorities" as a basis for future training and academic assistance programs to be funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The study design systematically covered the personnel needs in all state and local governmental agencies that were part of the law enforcement and criminal justice system. Sectors within the system included: (1) law enforcement, consisting of police departments and sheriff's agencies, ranging in size from one-person constabularies to large city departments employing 20,000 or more individuals, (2) corrections, including both adult and juvenile correctional institutions and agencies, and (3) the judicial process, including a wide range of courts with varying jurisdictions and scope, district attorneys or prosecutors' offices, and public defenders' offices. For this study, the Bureau of Social Science Research was responsible for the acquisition and assessment of existing statistical data as well as the design and execution of systematic mail surveys of agencies, officials, and employees within the law enforcement/criminal justice system. Nine nationwide surveys were directed to executives in criminal justice agencies, including chiefs of police (in both large and small departments), sheriffs (in both large and small departments), chief prosecutors, chief defenders, court administrators, wardens of adult correctional facilities, directors of juvenile correctional facilities, and chief probation and parole officers. Two additional surveys were sent to general and appellate jurisdiction courts. In the nine surveys directed to criminal justice executives, the instruments asked respondents for (1) an overall assessment of manpower problems, including personnel categories in which critical shortages might exist, and total personnel required to fulfill all agency duties and responsibilities, (2) desired and actual entry level standards, as well as entry level and in-service training content and requirements, (3) demographic, educational, training, and occupational background information about the executive respondent, (4) opinions about major obstacles to effectiveness and attitudes toward various issues such as team policing, plea bargaining, and computer-assisted case management, and (5) a fact sheet section dealing with agency employment by occupational category, salaries, and workloads. Each of the remaining two surveys was a census of general and appellate jurisdiction courts designed to yield basic statistical information regarding the courts and court systems' current staffing, training activities, and caseloads, and did not seek any attitudinal or subjective responses. Thus the agency itself was the reporting unit, with the respondent required only to be in a position to provide accurate, reliable information.
Curated
Partially restricted
National Prosecutors Survey, 1990 (ICPSR 9579)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1988-01-01--1990-01-01
This survey queried chief prosecuting attorneys of state prosecutorial districts (district attorneys, commonwealth attorneys, etc.) about the prosecution of felony cases within their jurisdictions during 1989-1990. Questions regarding the prefiling, filing, and pretrial stages of felony prosecution asked about policies limiting the time for plea negotiations, the role of the grand jury, how felony cases were screened, and the amount of time that usually elapsed before the prosecutor was notified of persons arrested for a felony. Prosecutors were also asked to report the percentage of court case filings by grand jury indictment, by information following a preliminary hearing, or by other means, and the percentage of felony cases processed by a court of general jurisdiction, a felony court, or other court(s). The trial stage of felony prosecution was covered by questions about the conduct of voir dire examination of prospective jurors, limits on time allowed to commence trial, the number of permitted peremptory challenges, who was responsible for notifying government witnesses to appear in court, whether the prosecution had the right to request a jury trial, whether the jurisdiction's felony court discouraged motions on trial date that would delay trial, and whether the felony court normally granted a continuance on trial date to permit additional time for plea negotiations. Questions on felony sentencing and appeals asked whether the prosecutor was usually present at felony sentence proceedings, whether the judge usually ordered a presentence report, whether victim information was requested or provided by the court, whether the prosecutor normally recommended a type or duration of sentence to be imposed, whether police, victims, or witnesses were notified of the disposition of felony cases, whether the prosecutor was involved in various types of appellate work, and whether the prosecutor had any right of appeal from rulings on motions, from sentences, and from determination of guilt or innocence. General information gathered by the survey includes the number of jurisdictions contained in the prosecutorial district, the number of attorneys and investigators employed in the sampled jurisdiction and in the prosecutorial district as a whole, the length of the prosecutor's term of office, the number of law enforcement agencies that brought arrests into the jurisdiction's court, how much of the prosecutor's felony caseload was assigned on a vertical basis, the kinds of nonfelony matters the prosecutor had responsibility for or jurisdiction over (e.g., family and domestic relations, mental commitments, environmental protection, traffic, etc.), whether the office of prosecutor was an elective position, and whether it was a full- or part-time position. Other general items include whether any felony defendants were provided an attorney on the grounds of indigency, whether, in criminal cases involving both state and federal jurisdiction, the prosecutor would ordinarily be cross-designated to represent the prosecutor in both courts, whether the prosecutor's office contained a "career criminal" unit, whether the state's attorney general was entitled to try cases in the jurisdiction's felony court, which types of criminal history data normally were of practical value in felony prosecution, and who supervised the probationer in most cases of adult felons sentenced to probation.
Curated
Partially restricted
National Prosecutors Survey, 1992 (ICPSR 6273)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1991-07-01--1992-06-30
This survey queried chief prosecuting attorneys of state prosecutorial districts (district attorneys, commonwealth attorneys, etc.) about the prosecution of felony cases within their jurisdictions during 1991 and 1992. Some items included in an earlier survey, NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1990 (ICPSR 9579), were repeated, covering topics such as new methods of prosecution, new kinds of evidence, use of criminal history data, general workload statistics, funding, plea negotiations, sentencing of intermediate sanctions, relationships with victims and other persons aiding prosecution, criminal defense of indigents, and the use of lower courts and grand juries. New areas of concern in 1992 included staffing, turnover, recruitment, new kinds of felonies, problem cases, scientific evidence, computerization, staff training, drug testing, and the personal risks associated with the role of prosecutor. Demographic data include sex, race, and ethnic composition of current staff members.
Curated
Partially restricted
National Prosecutors Survey, 1994 (ICPSR 6785)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1994-01-01--1994-12-31
The National Survey of Prosecutors is a biennial survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. The data collection instrument was based on questions that were included in the NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1992 (ICPSR 6273), and also added queries on topics of current concern, including: cross-designation of state prosecutors to try cases in federal court, juvenile transfers to criminal court, personal liability insurance for prosecutors, and involvement with community-based drug abuse programs. Variables include whether certain categories of felony prosecution, such as gangs, hate crimes, domestic violence, stalking, fraud, or child abuse or abduction were handled, whether DNA evidence, videotape, expert or child witnesses, polygraph tests, or wiretap evidence were used in trials, types of intermediate sanctions used, including house arrest, electronic monitoring, work release, substance abuse rehabilitation or therapy, community service, and fines or restitution, information on problem cases, personal risks associated with the role of the prosecutor, civil actions against prosecutors, criminal defense of indigent offenders, staffing, workload, funding, whether the defendant's criminal history was used in trials, juvenile matters, relationships with victims and other persons aiding prosecution, computerization, and community leadership. The unit of analysis is the district office.
Curated
Restricted
National Prosecutors Survey, 1996 (ICPSR 2433)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1996-01-01--1996-12-31
The National Survey of Prosecutors is a biennial survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. The data collection instrument was based on questions that were included in the NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1994 (ICPSR 6785), and also added queries on topics of current concern. Variables cover staffing, workload, funding, what type of computer access the office had, whether the office was part of an integrated computerized system with other specific criminal agencies, the use of DNA evidence in plea negotiations of felony trials, which laboratories performed these DNA analyses, juvenile matters, and risks associated with the role of the prosecutor, such as threatening letters or calls, face-to-face assaults, or batter/assaults. The unit of analysis is the district office.
Curated
National Prosecutors Survey, 2005 (ICPSR 4600)
Released/updated on: 2007-02-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-01-01--2005-12-31
The National Survey of Prosecutors is a biennial survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. The data collection instrument was based on questions that were included in the NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1994 (ICPSR 6785), and added queries on topics of current concern. Variables cover staffing, workload, funding, what type of computer access the office had, whether the office was part of an integrated computerized system with other specific criminal agencies, the use of DNA evidence in plea negotiations of felony trials, which laboratories performed these DNA analyses, juvenile matters, and risks associated with the role of the prosecutor, such as threatening letters or calls, face-to-face assaults, or batter/assaults. The unit of analysis is the district office.
Curated
National Prosecutors Survey [Census], 2001 (ICPSR 3418)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
The National Survey of Prosecutors is a survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. It was previously conducted in 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996 (ICPSR 9579, 6273, 6785, 2433 respectively). For 2001, instead of a survey of chief prosecutors, a census of all 2,341 chief prosecutors who handled felony cases in state courts of general jurisdiction was conducted. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The census' purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. Variables cover staffing, funding, special categories of felony prosecutions, caseload, juvenile matters, work-related threats or assaults, the use of DNA evidence, and community-related activities, such as involvement in neighborhood associations. The unit of analysis is the district office.
Curated
National Prosecutors Survey [Census], 2007 (ICPSR 33202)
Released/updated on: 2012-05-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2007-01-01--2007-12-31
The 2007 Census of State Court Prosecutors marked the second BJS survey of all prosecutors' offices in the United States. The first census, conducted in 2001, included the 2,341 offices in operation at that time. The second census included the 2,330 state court prosecutors' offices operating in 2007. Neither census included offices of municipal attorneys or county attorneys, who primarily operate in courts of limited jurisdiction. State court prosecutors serve in the executive branch of state governments and handle felony cases in state courts of general jurisdiction. By law, these prosecutors are afforded broad discretion in determining who is charged with an offense and whether a case goes to trial. The chief prosecutor, also referred to as the district attorney, county attorney, commonwealth attorney, or state's attorney, represents the state in criminal cases and is answerable to the public as an elected or appointed public official. The Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is the only federal prosecutor included in the census. This unique office is responsible for prosecution of serious local crimes committed in the District and also for prosecution of federal cases, whether criminal or civil.
Curated
National Study of Law Enforcement Agencies' Policies Regarding Missing Children and Homeless Youth, 1986 (ICPSR 6127)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of the study was to provide information about law enforcement agencies' handling of missing child cases, including the rates of closure for these cases, agencies' initial investigative procedures for handling such reports, and obstacles to investigation. Case types identified include runaway, parental abduction, stranger abduction, and missing for unknown reasons. Other key variables provide information about the existence and types of policies within law enforcement agencies regarding missing child reports, such as a waiting period and classification of cases. The data also contain information about the cooperation of and use of the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).
Curated
National Survey of AIDS in Correctional Facilities, 1985-1990, 1992 (ICPSR 6437)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1985-01-01--1990-01-01
In late 1985, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) began its first study of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in correctional facilities. The objective of the study was to report on the incidence and institutional management of AIDS within the federal and state prison systems, as well as in the nation's largest jails. The study was conducted annually from 1985-1990 and biannually thereafter. This collection contains data collected in 1985-1990 and 1992 via a mail questionnaire. Questionnaires were sent each year to the correctional departments of all 50 states, the federal prison system, and 33 to 37 large city and county jail systems. In addition, in 1987-1990, Canadian prison systems were surveyed. A different questionnaire was used in each of the seven years of data collection. However, each questionnaire addressed the same major topics: inmate population, numbers of inmate cases of AIDS and AIDS-Related Complex (ARC), aggregate results of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) antibody testing programs, and major policies regarding AIDS (training and education, testing, medical and psycho-social services, housing, precautionary measures, confidentiality), as well as associated legal and cost issues. The 1992 questionnaire collected additional information on the prevalence of and policies toward inmates with tuberculosis.
Curated
National Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998 (ICPSR 2879)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This study reports findings from a survey of publicly operated forensic crime labs that perform deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing. The survey includes questions about each lab's budget, personnel, workload, and operating policies and procedures. Data were obtained from 108 out of 120 estimated known labs, including all statewide labs.
Curated
National Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 2001 (ICPSR 3550)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This study contains data from a survey of publicly operated forensic crime labs that perform deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing. The survey was a follow-up to the initial survey of DNA crime labs in 1998 (ICPSR study 2879). The survey included questions about each lab's budget, personnel, procedures, equipment, and workloads in terms of known subject cases, unknown subject cases, and convicted offender DNA samples. The survey was sent to 135 forensic laboratories, and 124 responses were received from individual public laboratories and headquarters for statewide forensic crime laboratory systems. The responses included 110 publicly funded forensic laboratories that performed DNA testing in 47 states.
Curated
National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (NSIDS), 1999 (ICPSR 3081)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-01-01
This survey collected nationwide data in order to: (1) identify the number and characteristics of publicly financed indigent defense systems and agencies in the United States, (2) measure how legal services were provided to indigent criminal defendants in terms of caseloads, workloads, policies, and practices, and (3) describe the types of offenses handled by indigent defense system organizations. The study was initially designed to permit measurable statistical estimates at the national level for each region of the United States, for individual states, and for the 100 most populous counties, including the District of Columbia. However, due to resource and financial constraints, the study was scaled back to collect indigent criminal defense data at the trial level for (1) the 100 most populous counties, (2) 197 counties outside the 100 most populous counties, and (3) states that entirely funded indigent criminal defense services.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (NSIDS) State-Administered Data, 2013 (ICPSR 36831)
Released/updated on: 2017-10-02
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2012-01-01--2013-01-01
The National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (NSIDS) collected nationwide data in order to: (1) identify the number and characteristics of publicly financed indigent defense systems and agencies in the United States, (2) measure how legal services were provided to indigent criminal defendants in terms of caseloads, workloads, policies, and practices, and (3) describe the types of offenses handled by indigent defense system organizations. The study was initially designed to permit measurable statistical estimates at the national level for each region of the United States, for individual states, and for the 100 most populous counties, including the District of Columbia. However, due to resource and financial constraints, the 1999 Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (ICPSR 3081) was scaled back to collect indigent criminal defense data at the trial level for (1) the 100 most populous counties, (2) 197 counties outside the 100 most populous counties, and (3) states that entirely funded indigent criminal defense services.
The 2013 NSIDS was the first census of all state- and county-administered indigent defense systems. It was also the first collection of data focusing on criminal defense and civil, juvenile, and appellate representation. The NSIDS furthers the work of the 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) and the 1999 Survey of Indigent Defense Systems.
Curated
National Survey of Judges and Court Practitioners, 1991 (ICPSR 9837)
Released/updated on: 2000-10-27
Geographic coverage: United States
The United States Sentencing Commission, established by the 98th Congress, is an independent agency in the judicial branch of government. The Commission's primary function is to institute guidelines that prescribe the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes. This survey was developed in response to issues that arose during site visits conducted in conjunction with an implementation study of sentencing guidelines and was intended to supplement the information obtained in the more extensive site visit interviews. Topics include the impact of the plea agreement, departures by the court, mandatory minimum sentences, the general issue of unwarranted sentencing disparity, and whether this disparity had increased, decreased, or stayed about the same since the sentencing guidelines were imposed in 1987.
Curated
Partially restricted
Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS), 1979: Hawaii (ICPSR 8042)
Released/updated on: 2005-08-08
Geographic coverage: United States, Hawaii
The purpose of the Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS), 1979: Hawaii was to compile, collate, analyze, publish, and disseminate statistical information concerning the operation of the criminal justice system at the federal, state, and local levels. This collection includes facts on an arrested offender showing actions by the police, prosecutor, and court. The individual offender is the unit of analysis, and felony arrests and other related dispositions are included.
Curated
Partially restricted
Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS), 1980: California, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and Utah (ICPSR 8248)
Released/updated on: 2005-08-08
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, California, New York (state), Utah, Pennsylvania
Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS) studies are designed to collect information by tracking adult offenders from the point of entry into the criminal justice system (typically by arrest) through final disposition, regardless of whether the offender is convicted or acquitted. Information is provided on arrest, police action, prosecutor action, level of charges, charges filed by the prosecutor, type of counsel, pretrial status, type of trial, sentence type, and sentence length. This allows researchers to examine how the criminal justice system processes offenders, to measure the changing volume of offenders moving through the different segments of the criminal justice system, to calculate processing time intervals between major decision-making events, and to assess the changing structure of the offender population.
Curated
Partially restricted
Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS), 1981: California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Minnesota, New York, and Virginia (ICPSR 8277)
Released/updated on: 2005-08-08
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Minnesota, California, New York (state), Virginia, Utah, Pennsylvania
Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS) studies are designed to collect information by tracking adult offenders from the point of entry into the criminal justice system (typically by arrest) through final disposition, regardless of whether the offender is convicted or acquitted. Information is provided on arrest, police action, prosecutor action, level of charges, charges filed by the prosecutor, type of counsel, pretrial status, type of trial, sentence type, and sentence length. This allows researchers to examine how the criminal justice system processes offenders, to measure the changing volume of offenders moving through the different segments of the criminal justice system, to calculate processing time intervals between major decision-making events, and to assess the changing structure of the offender population.
Curated
Partially restricted
Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS), 1982: California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Minnesota, New York, Virgin Islands, and Virginia (ICPSR 8408)
Released/updated on: 2005-08-08
Geographic coverage: United States, Virgin Islands of the United States, Ohio, Minnesota, California, New York (state), Virginia, Utah, Pennsylvania
Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS) studies are designed to collect information by tracking adult offenders from the point of entry into the criminal justice system (typically by arrest) through final disposition, regardless of whether the offender is convicted or acquitted. Information is provided on arrest, police action, prosecutor action, level of charges, charges filed by the prosecutor, type of counsel, pretrial status, type of trial, sentence type, and sentence length. This allows researchers to examine how the criminal justice system processes offenders, to measure the changing volume of offenders moving through the different segments of the criminal justice system, to calculate processing time intervals between major decision-making events, and to assess the changing structure of the offender population.